mcp_opendaw_move_region_to_track

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: the region keeps its position/duration/content and the source track loses the region. It also states the return behavior ('Returns success or error'). This goes beyond a bare mutation claim by specifying invariants and the fact that the source is affected, though it does not cover undo behavior or edge-case validation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: an opening sentence stating the core action, a behavioral invariant sentence, a bullet-like parameter list, and a return-value note. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential semantics for a 5-parameter cross-unit move operation: parameter meanings, the preservation of region properties, and the source track losing the region. However, it omits guidance on when to use this over the closely related copy_region_to_track or transfer_region, and it does not mention possible failure modes (e.g., invalid indices) or whether the operation is undoable. Given the complexity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter in plain language (src_unit_index, src_track_index, region_index, dst_unit_index, dst_track_index) with context ('Source track index within source unit'), adding meaning that the schema's bare titles lack. This fully explains the 5-parameter interface.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('region from one track to another'), and clarifies that it can cross audio units. It distinguishes from the copy sibling by stating 'The source track loses the region,' making the tool's unique purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (when moving a region between tracks), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. The statement 'The source track loses the region' implies a contrast with copying, but it never explicitly says 'to keep the source, use copy_region_to_track' or otherwise compare against sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.